47 research outputs found
Multi-frequency Studies of Massive Cores with Complex Spatial and Kinematic Structures
Five regions of massive star formation have been observed in various
molecular lines in the frequency range GHz. The studied regions
possess dense cores, which host young stellar objects. The physical parameters
of the cores are estimated, including kinetic temperatures ( K),
sizes of the emitting regions ( pc), and virial masses (). Column densities and abundances of various molecules are
calculated in the local thermodynamical equilibrium approximation. The core in
99.982+4.17, associated with the weakest IRAS source, is characterized by
reduced molecular abundances. Molecular line widths decrease with increasing
distance from the core centers (). For b\ga 0.1~pc, the dependences
are close to power laws (), where varies from
to , depending on the object. In four cores, the
asymmetries of the optically thick HCN(1--0) and HCO(1--0) lines indicate
systematic motions along the line of sight: collapse in two cores and expansion
in two others. Approximate estimates of the accretion rates in the collapsing
cores indicate that the forming stars have masses exceeding the solar mass.Comment: 18 pages, 7 figures, 6 table
Rayleigh surface waves propagating in (111) Si substrate decorated with Ni phononic nanostructure
The paper reports results of the Surface Brillouin Light Scattering at the
silicon (111) surface loaded with a periodic 2D nickel nanostructure.
Measurements were made for samples loaded with nanostructures of different
period (different size) but of the same height. The relation between the
nanostructure size and the velocity of surface Rayleigh waves was proved to be
nonlinear. Anisotropy of the surface Rayleigh wave velocity was compared with
the results of theoretical modelling based on the Finite Element Method
Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science
\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science â a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline â the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ânon-nativeâ, âalienâ, âinvasiveâ or âinvaderâ, âexoticâ, ânon-indigenousâ, ânaturalisedâ, âpestâ) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ânon-nativeâ, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) âestablished non-nativeâ, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) âinvasive non-nativeâ â populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising âspreadâ for classifying invasiveness and âimpactâ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species
Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science
Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science â a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline â the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ânon-nativeâ, âalienâ, âinvasiveâ or âinvaderâ, âexoticâ, ânon-indigenousâ, ânaturalisedâ, âpestâ) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ânon-nativeâ, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) âestablished non-nativeâ, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) âinvasive non-nativeâ â populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising âspreadâ for classifying invasiveness and âimpactâ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species
Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science
Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science â a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline â the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' â populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species